From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH (regression)] Fragments: fix race between inet_frag_find and inet_frag_secret_rebuild Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 00:09:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20080625.000903.262554536.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20080624180714.GA3125@ami.dom.local> <4861E8F0.9080507@openvz.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: jarkao2@gmail.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: xemul@openvz.org Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:43784 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751832AbYFYHJE (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Jun 2008 03:09:04 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4861E8F0.9080507@openvz.org> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Pavel Emelyanov Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 10:42:56 +0400 > Jarek Poplawski wrote: > > Maybe it's a matter of taste: since there is this "#ifdef CONFIG_SMP", > > and the new comment concerns with "other CPU", why this re-calculation > > isn't done only for SMP? > > Because the hash value is required also *outside* this ifdef and adding > a fancier logic is probably not good for a -rc7 fix. > > However, I will re-consider this for net-next. > > > And, btw., probably __acquires/__releases annotations could be added > > with this patch. > > This is also a net-next material (I hope Dave agrees with me on both). I do. :-)